Posted by burnsy483 on 3/15/2013 9:36:00 AM (view original):The guy who's in an argument about the appropriate time and place to post in the forums is telling us we're dumb for arguing something related to sports.

Make Manning work with only TEs and a slot man and he'd put up worse numbers than Brady.

This is so absurd it's almost not worth addressing, but I will just for the sake of saying I didn't ignore it.

Give Manning Gronk, Hernandez AND Welker and he destroys Brady's numbers no matter who the other wideouts are. No question.

But I'm not discussing Manning - I'm discussing Brady and his lack of skills compared with just about anyone else considered "great".

If you ignore visual evidence of him showcasing his skills, then yes, you are ignoring something.

No, I'm not. I just don't click on links to videos, period.

So I ask for descriptions instead, and YOU ignore that. It's on you to provide evidence other than a video you know I won't see.

If you dismiss statistics describing him making big plays under pressure, then you are ignoring something.

Statistics don't describe a big play under pressure.

The statistics you gave on that were dubious to begin with (what constitutes "under pressure" from the perspective of the person who gave the statistic?) and don't actually describe any plays and lists the skills allegedly shown.

If you describe how bad he is in bad weather, and are shown stats that show he might be the best QB ever in bad weather, and dismiss it, you are ignoring something.

I didn't dismiss it; I systematically debunked the very notion he's a great bad weather QB by showing how the statistic given was misleading. Apparently you ignored that.

I also described instances when he made big plays, under pressure, in big situations. You ignored it. In fact, you took a portion of my post and replied to it, while ignoring the other parts.

Now you're delusional. You never did any such thing. I'm still waiting on anyone to provide a description of a single example - if you claim you'd already done it, then go quote it and show me it again. I'm guessing you only did it in your own mind.

Um....they've responded to your requests with video evidence! What MORE proof do you need? Actually video!

Again, I've stated several times I do not click on video links and have asked for a description in lieu of video. It wouldn't be difficult to provide a description of the play you see on video if such a play actually showed what you claim it shows. Yet you keep saying you've posted a video when you know I haven't and won't watch it, as though it somehow means something.

VIDEO MEANS NOTHING. PROVIDE A DESCRIPTION OR YOU HAVE NOTHING.

I mean, if this were a murder trial, and they showed a video of the defendant stabbing the victim....i'd bet that they find him guilty.

If it was declared the jury wasn't allowed to watch the video, it would mean nothing. That's essentially the case here if you can follow your own metaphor.

Again:

VIDEO MEANS NOTHING. PROVIDE A DESCRIPTION OR YOU HAVE NOTHING.

Welker will have Thomas, Decker, Welker, Joel Dressen, Jacob Tamme, Jacob Hester, Moreno and McGhee. Manning should have the single greatest passing season ever this year. If he doesn't, then he's the most overrated QB ever. Got it.

You don't click on videos, because you don't want to see the truth! Simple as that.

But according to ESPN Stats & Information, that theory couldn't be more incorrect.

This season Brady has the highest completion percentages (67.1), yards (1,582) and passer rating (135.6) of any NFL quarterback when teams bring five or more rushers. Brady also is tied with Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers for the most touchdown passes (16) this season against the blitz.

The emergence of second-year tight ends Rob Gronkowski and Aaron Hernandez helps tremendously in this area. Most blitzes leave the middle of the field exposed or in one-on-one coverage, which both tight ends have been able to exploit. Wes Welker also does most of his damage in the middle of the field.

Brady, 34, is at the point in his career where he's seen every defensive scheme. Chances are, you're not going to surprise him with a blitz, and his receivers are talented enough to beat single coverage. The best route for opponents is to just sit back and hope Brady makes a couple mistakes.

How did you "systematically debunk" Brady being a bad bad-weather QB? Man, you're delusional.

So, i give you an example of a video and a trail...and your response is "if they decided that the jury was not to watch the video". Seriously you are a moron. You're the only one that saying that the video doesn't matter. WATCH the video sometime. You actually might get an education.

You're not the judge here, you're just another member of the jury. You don't get to decide which evidence is admissible and which isn't.

In this case I am both judge and jury. If you want to prove something to me, you'll have to do it within the thread or I won't accept it. So either play by that rule or don't expect to prove anything to me - your choice.

I don't click on links to videos. Period. You want to prove something to me, the onus is on you to do it without those links.

You might want to provide a description of the video if you claim it shows Brady's skills. You still haven't even attempted that when I've spoon fed you the suggestion of doing it.

Next you'll be asking me to argue your opinions for you.

You don't click on videos, because you don't want to see the truth! Simple as that.

No. I don't click on links to videos because I don't do it for any reason, period, ever. I'm sure not going to change my policy on that just so to see what you post in this debate.

Its the stats that say how Brady has faired with teams blitzing with 5+ players.

My argument supports the idea that Brady would do well against that many blitzers. You cannot provide defensive coverage for long when that many people are coming to get the QB.

I've been arguing that much of Brady's game is on getting the ball to an outlet guy, such as Welker, because that's a designed part of the offense - on many plays, the role of one guy is to specifically serve as the quick strike if Brady is pressured and/or to be the guy who gets open underneath if Brady can't find anyone wide open downfield.

So if one guy is supposed to get open in case of pressure, if he does his job even somewhat well, you would expect even an average NFL QB to look right for that guy as soon as he sees five or more guys coming on a blitz. If the QB can get the ball to that guy - sometimes it doesn't go well, but if he can get it done - the guy should have plenty of room to run on many plays since the defense devoted so many guys to the blitz.

Bottom line: When your offense is set up to compensate for your QBs lack of skills at making plays under pressure by making sure someone is ready to take that pass, you would expect to be more successful than other offenses which aren't set up to compensate for a QB who can't perform under pressure.

This is right from your article, and supports what I just said:

Most blitzes leave the middle of the field exposed or in one-on-one coverage, which both tight ends have been able to exploit. Wes Welker also does most of his damage in the middle of the field.

How did you "systematically debunk" Brady being a bad bad-weather QB? Man, you're delusional.

I'll keep this short: I pointed out how Brady has made many errors in bad-weather games, but has been lucky enough that they didn't cost the team the game. I showed how fumbles, interceptions, and even referee calls have helped his team to win bad weather games they probably should have lost. I also pointed out the team's record is a flawed measure of how well a QB has performed in a given game or number of games, and how the sample size of games considered "bad weather" games Brady has played in is too small to measure overall success by wins and losses even if that weren't an otherwise flawed metric to begin with.

If you missed all of that and want the details, you can go find them earlier in the thread and read them.

You're the only one that saying that the video doesn't matter.

And I'm the one you're trying to convince, so if you want any real shot at doing that, you might want to try doing it with evidence I would actually see.

"My argument supports the idea that Brady would do well against that many blitzers." - Sounds like a good, smart quarterback.

This is exactly the problem. You credit Brady when it is the system that is set up to compensate for his lack of skills that allows him to do well. Any average NFL QB would do just as well, as the system is set up to compensate for Brady's inability to do well under pressure in the way I already described.

So it sounds like a system set up to keep a slightly above average QB with not many skills under pressure from screwing up.

"I don't look at your evidence because I have a policy of not looking at your evidence. You'll have to come up with something else to prove me wrong."

I'm happy to look at evidence. I just don't click links to certain types of things, such as videos.

If you can't take the time to describe a play you allege is there in the video, then you don't have anything worth saying anyway.